Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Tang Dynasty Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:38, 4 June 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits emphasizing BOLD FloNight's words -- "need to balance between walking away and not addressing specific concerns"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:59, 13 June 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits courtesy blank page 
(47 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Arbitrators active on this case==
{{ACA|Tang Dynasty=yes}}
{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
== ]'s WP:TLDR winning again over the valid concerns on his incivility and harassment ==


'''Recused:'''
I do think so. Various editors addressed their concerns that Newyorkbrad's initial proposals at the Workshop are not enough, and too soft given Tenmei's repeated disruption, but the final decisions are even softer than the first one. ANI can not stop his incivility and he has harassed me to expose my name to ANI, and he wikistalked me and attacked all editors even arbitrators during the ArbCom case. As looking other ArbCom cases, such behaviors are immediately sanctioned as a temporary injunction (Macedonian, Obama, Date Delinking, and others). However, Tenmei who did the horrendous behaviors even can evade from ArbCom due to his TLDR argument that includes his various attacks. I'm very disappointed by the impractical decision.-] 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
#Carcharoth
#Casliber
#Kirill Lokshin
#Risker


}}<!---
:I am of the opinion that the ArbCom case should also cover Tenmei's disruptive behaviours elsewhere, and I feel the appropriate sanctions should be placed above. In fact, I feel Tenmei should at least get a mentorship, if ArbCom feels an outright ban is inappropriate.] (]) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
::I wonder Arbitrators even read thought the whole evidence and workshop page where Tenmei excises various uncivil comments because of his too long argument. Tenmei even gave me personal attacks while NYB finished up writing the final proposals. But why the mentorship suggestion (thought he was informally mentored) is not considered. --] 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
'''Active:'''
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman
#FayssalF


'''Inactive:'''
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
#Carcharoth
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


'''Recused:'''
==Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written==
This specific "proposed finding of fact" should be rejected as written.


}}<!---
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Carcharoth
#Cool Hand Luke
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
I write to encourage votes in opposition; and I hope those who have already voted re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.


'''Recused:'''
<u>NO to 1st sentence</u>. The case originated when ] rejected any and all inquiry relating to ], ] and ], alleging ] and ] instead. This persistent ''confrontational strategy'' is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support ]'s locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard , and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at . This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a ''strategy of collaborative editing''; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence
#Casliber
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Risker
}}<!---
--->{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Carcharoth
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
<u>NO to 3rd sentence</u>. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by ] and ]. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
#Risker
}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq:yes|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
In support, I highlight a crucial or between "A" and "B" below:
#Carcharoth
#Risker


}}<!--
:*A. ]'s analysis and paraphrases ]'s measured language :
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
::"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
'''Active:'''
::* 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
#Carcharoth
::* 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
#Casliber
::* 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
#Cool Hand Luke
::* 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
#FayssalF
::"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes <s>and are all violations of our core content policies</s>, e.g., ], ] and ]."
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Sam Blacketer
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
::*B. ]'s rejection is entire and :
#Coren
:::'''"This guy is out of control, man."'''


'''Recused:'''
In this instance, ]'s paraphrase of ]'s moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at ]. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of ] and ]. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|


'''Active''':
In these pivotal diffs, ] cannot ''feign'' to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ''ad nauseam'' on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
In voting to support this awkward ], ArbCom's judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of ] and ] were above reproach and I was not.
#Carcharoth
#Risker


'''Recused''':
This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --] (]) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


}}<!--
===Workshop===
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
This attentive focus on the locus of dispute is also found in my workshop contributions. ]'s proposed findings of fact at were opposed. --] (]) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
'''Active''':
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Recused''':
===Remedies ===
#Carcharoth
Five remedies are proposed, but I don't understand how to convert these terse aphorisms into something meaningful and timely.
#Casliber
:*1. I recognize the practical reasons for avoiding ] and ]. I can comply with this ArbCom directive, but I don't understand the verb in the sense that it can be construed as a punishment for misconduct. It is fair to say that ]'s so-called "evidence" and other contributions are designed to ensure that I would get "disadvantage from the decision." I adopt ]'s language below as a restatement:
::"His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. <u>He would not get any disadvantage from the decision.</u>"
:*2.
:*3.
:*4.
:*5. In principle, the '']'' continuing jurisdiction is crucial. In practice, ]'s characteristic focus on my "disadvantage from the decision" makes continuing jurisdiction more important than in other cases. This ArbCom case could have been something other than a ], but there you have it.


'''Away or inactive''':
ArbCom confirms that I'm the in this dispute; but I can't feign to be contrite because I simply do not understand. In this case, core values are confounded when ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good.
}}
:<small>''To update this listing, and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.''</small>


] can't be averted if the dispute resolution fails to devote adequate attention to those who most need to understand how to parse ]. --] (]) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) {{notice|The talk page comments have been blanked at the request of the participants in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. ]] 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)}}

====Jurisdiction====
There are only six votes for retaining jurisdition; and no interests are served by abandoning a number of problems which have been exacerbated by ArbCom's intervention. --] (]) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:Wikiquote: 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature
: --
:The Nobel Prize website makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence.

I do not know how this could have been handled better. I do know that, having opened the case, it's in your hands. --] (]) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:The newly added elements of the proposed decision suggest circumstances in which retained jurisdiction might be helpful:
::* Allegations pertaining to each other
::* Parties instructed and urged
::* Parties are instructed and warned
::* Editors counseled to step away temporarily,
:I would expect these to be seen as compelling reasons for retaining jursidiction. --] (]) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== Another list and "disruptive" canvassing by ] ==

Given Tenmei above rant to the very generous final remedies, I wonder why Tenmei listed the all Arbitrators and their email addresses onto his talk page. I do not want to assume that it is another ] (me, Nick-D, LordAmeth). However, his canvassing to arbitrators to strongly demand for revising the "Locus of dispute" that he does not like is beyond my understanding of his behaviors. -_-;; His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. He would not get any disadvantage from the decision. However, why does he cause more troubles for himself doing this? As proposed, Mentorship would be better for him.--] 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:If the posting is just for the canvassing, he may delete it after his mission is fulfilled.--] 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::Tenmei's canvassing is disruptive and needs to stop. I hope this can show ArbCom the need for stronger measures.] (]) 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

] My modest effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was here converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This pattern is emblematic; and it destroys any hope for anything but confrontation to ensue. I don't understand how or why this is left out of ArbCom's decision-making process. I can at least ], but that doesn't really do much to suggest alternative which could have avoided this problem at the outset. --<s>] (]) 19:54, 30 May 2009</s> ] (]) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:]--] 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

== Another canvassing and obsession of ] ==

*I'm very sick and tired of Tenmei's persistent obsession with me and agenda of hunting me down. He has canvassed today to editors' talk pages where he previously wikistalked my edits, and harassed me regardless of the fact that he was all irrelevant of my discussion with them. <u>The current ArbCom enforcement on him is purely due to his disruption and incivility</u> to the article in question but he still tries to antagonaize me all over the place. He gloated with sending messages of my activity and mocked me with various insulting naming calling. Unfortunately the ArBcom does not care about his "continued harassment", and inappropriate behaviors.
*Two admins in good standing but are marked as Tenmei's enemy (just like User:Mattisse's plague list), and have expressed their concern on Tenmei. Tenmei has to see that almost all editors consider his behavior very disruptive to the community, but in his canvassing, I'm on the spot light again. He thinks that he did not do wrong. Why would the committe not regulate this kind of behavior? I do not want to meet this guy's relentless disruption any more.--] 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'm going to paste it to the Evidence section.--] 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

===] is crying wolf ===
NO. No ] would complain about this seemly posting. This what I wrote:

::'''Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly'''
::I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

::'''ArbCom remedy'''
::Voting is underway at . In part because of , the was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that ] has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at . I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.

::ArbCom findings of fact included:
::* . "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

::ArbCom remedies included:
::* : "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

::* : "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

::It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

::If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.

Who's kidding who? --] (]) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

: Definitely, I think that Tenmei should stop his disruptive behaviours.] (]) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

=== ] ===
Misplaced Pages is not a place to educate somebody's lack of his/her common sense. According to your logic, Tenmei, anyone who knows your disruptive behavior very well can call you "various names". Just imagine what others would call you given your "relentless harassment", and "habitual verbal abuses". As you already admitted yourself that my evidence has something to do with your proposed sanctions and two admins in good standing have confirmed my view and your behaviors. Think and look upon yourself. --] 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== Tenmei's another verbal abuses ==

See the above name callings, ad hominem attacks and blatant canvassing by Tenmei--] 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Crying wolf''', and '''long-term toxic warrior''', etc

:Who's kidding who? When I delicately tried to seek help during the period in which I was working on the workshop page, an inquiry about how to disagree without being disagreeable was converted by ] into harassment -- offered as evidence of long-term harassment <u>and</u> offered as proof of wikihounding and trolling? ... <u>and also</u> offered again as a basis for an injunction? This is overreaching. This is wrong.

:What's going on here? ArbCom allowed this toxic long-term warrior to become the central figure in our ArbCom case without giving me any way to know that the locus of dispute had changed. Now, when I begin to make tentative gestures to find a constructive ], the little boy who cried wolf intrudes yet anew. --] (]) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

===What I want from the ArbCom is to stop Tenmei harassing me===
See another naming calling. I just do not want this guy comes near me. This long-term and disruptive harassment by Tenmei should be stopped by the Committee.--] 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

====Stop====
'''What harassment is not'''
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user. <u>Unfounded accusations of harassment</u> is considered a serious ].

::No ] would draw this conclusion.
:::NO -- Your role as posturing victim is not credible in the context of your own words in this ArbCom case. The word "harassment" has a very significant wiki-meaning. It is not to be used casually. You have used this loaded term with extravagant excess. It must stop.

::In "evidence presented by Caspian blue," there were many so-called examples of harassment, including this , which is small.

::There was nothing untoward in attempting to offer a consoling gesture to someone who had been crushed in a dispute which I didn't understand. As I recall, ] had been overwhelmed by the kind of tactics I was only begin to recognize as characteristic. I didn't understand it, but I found it pointlessly hurtful. In November, I posted the following:

:::]'''A plausibly calming thought?'''
:::]
:::The seasonal colors of autumn leaves -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise ....

:::] explains : "One thing about myself, I really don't like "orange color" which is the ] to blue."

:::Are you familiar with the Latin phrase, ] -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise? --] 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::This is not harassment I can't imagine what motivated you to use this term in this setting; but in part, I suspect it is because I didn't respond in the ways you'd anticipated. I was guided by one sentence from the top of the evidence page. I took it as an admonishment -- "Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior." I now see that it was wrong to do so.

::There is much I don't understand about how Misplaced Pages really works -- as contrasted with hortatory policy pages, but I do know that a serious complaint about harassment requires something more substantial than autumn leaves. --] (]) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

====] for the last time====
How many times have I told you, stop. It is extremely frustrating that arbcom and clerk do not care to intervene him to stop his verbal abuse during the whole time of ArBcom. because he may feel some of his verbal attacks have to be removed, then that's good for his recognition. I just wish this kind of abuses by the individual be stopped by ArbCom intervention; lurking and wikistalking my edits, harassing me, and advocating your agenda to editors whom I encountered.

If I were the only one who has perceived your verbal abuses and harassment, then why everyone who've given "evidences" on your disruption, have suggested that you should be further restricted or banned from the community for one year or get sanctioned with assigned mentorship? I got to know today that you even created sandboxes just solely to attack me and Nick-D at Dutch Wiki (Teeninvestor informed NYB of it)

Why are you to be the sole claimer for your agenda on English and various accuations? Because you've been behaving disruptive during the ArbCom and the Tang article as well as various articles in the past. I don't care about your editing, but I just do not want you to "get me" and spread your agenda about me outside areas that you are not related to. You're indeed "out of line". Over the past 8 months, I've been harassed by you. You are the one to invite me to write down your abuses, and attacks because of your attacking me and seeking vengeances to George. Why my name has to be in your canvassed message because you think the remedies on you are due to my evidence? You've been behaving disruptive, so you're going to be sanctioned. I have no intention to work with you ever, so please desist your spooky behavior.--] 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:Wikiquote: 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature
: --
:The Nobel Prize website makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence. --] (]) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

==Not a minor ==
I hesitate to post anything at all on this page because I don't want to give ] any further opportunities to complain. However, there are many things I don't understand about how our ArbCom case unfolded. Even at the risk of arousing ] anew, I feel a need to mention my concerns in a timely manner.

As the case has not yet closed, I guess this is the place where I should begin.

I understand that my composition skills are identified as "findings of fact" -- . I also notice that ArbCom finds that perceived problems with my writing needs to be remedied --
and

If my writing inhibited ArbCom's ability to understand, why was there zero response to any questions I posed to clerks? I specifically identified "complying with ArbCom expectations" as an urgent concern. I was explicit in asking for guidance, e.g.,
* "If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation" -- .
* "If there is arguable merit in Teeninvestor's comments and complaints, I fail to see it at this point; but at least I can take the prudent and timely step of seeking an opinion from someone who understands the process better than I do" -- .
The proposed decision is plain in explaining that ArbCom's view of the the locus and scope of this case was unrelated to what I thought the locus and scope were. I asked for clarification at a time when I could do something to affect the outcome -- , but there was no response. I don't see this as a minor . Why was there no response to questions in a timely manner?

The ArbCom finding of fact and remedies remain difficult for me to parse easily. --] (]) 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

==Mentorship==

I believe FloNight's mentorship suggestion for Tenmei on workshop is constructive.] (]) 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:Although I think that Tenmei's disruptive behaviours are not sanctioned enough, I see the mentorship proposal of FloNight as a very constructive step forward. I urge all arbitrators to support said proposal.] (]) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
==<u>Not</u> disrupting, harassing, attacking, abusing ==
On this talk page, ] posted the words "toxic" and "long-term" and "warrior" on this page .

I did <u>not</u> aggravate with provocative and baiting diffs. Nevertheless, ]'s inventive malice opened a new venue at ], presenting a chain of complaint including "... Tenmei has called me "toxic long-tern edit warrior ..." Before the experience of this ArbCom case, I would have thought there was no need to reject facile accusations :
:* No to the phrase "... Tenmei continuing disruptive behaviors ..."
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:* No to the phrase "... ArbCom clerks and Arbitrators just let Tenmei harass me."
:* No to the phrase "... attacked me with vicious verbal abuses."
:* No to the phrase "... this kind of abuses has been condoned ..."
It takes much longer to fashion a response than was invested in the original diff.

] replied with measured language .

] posted a mild comment on my talk page .

]'s complaints require the reader to presume merit in allegations of victimization and -- neither of which is justified by the immediate edit history.

:<u>Edit history</u>
:>''' <u>04:39</u>, 2 June (''→Tenmei for the last time'') ... new thread initiative by ]'''

{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:A 15:13, 2 June (''→Tenmei for the last time'')<br>
:B 16:35, 2 June (''→Stop'')<br>
:C 16:45, 2 June 2009 (''→Remedies: jurisdiction'')<br>
{{col-2}}
A Responsive () is a <u>non</u>-dramatic Wikiquote<Br>
B Responsive () is <u>non</u>-dramatic underlining<br>
C Non-dramatic issue , Jurisdiction is <u>non</u>-aggravating
{{col-end}}

:>''' <u>17:01</u>, 2 June (''Tenmei, regardless of the last warning, you continue doing so'') ... new thread initative by ]'''

:> '''<u>17:11</u>, 2 June (''→Tenmei: ce'') ... new thread initiative at ] by ]<Br>'''

{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:D 19:16, 2 June (''why did the clerks answer no questions?'')
{{col-2}}
D. Non-dramatic issue , clarification is <u>non</u>-aggravating
{{col-end}}

I took hours to create this response -- a diff which arguably tries to be succinct and clear. The task embitters, because ]'s mild rebuke casts me in an undeserved role. Like ] , I'm taken aback: "Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail?"

I have a partial answer to "why" and "how," but for today, I can only say that it wasn't because of me. I believe that ]'s reaction was informed by the idiomatic expression ]; but that phrase is misleading in this specific instance.

In this ArbCom case, my restraint should have earned commendation. It did not. Arguably, ]'s comment shows that I have been similarly ill-served by restraint on this page. Caspian blue's repeated allegations are unjustified, but when I fail to response '']'', ] demonstrates that the empty claims metamorphose into presumed facts.

This is not a good for me. This is not good for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

===Allegations pertaining to each other===
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation from this non-party. The effects of compliance remain unclear, primarily because ]'s the unchecked claims of victimization are unlikely to diminish. Actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:A bitter lesson learned in this ArbCom case is this: I must acknowledge any accusation or mis-applied label, else it will be presented -- and likely accepted -- as so-called "evidence" of misconduct in some future venue unrelated to this one. I reject the following litany of loaded-words and wiki-catchwords:
:* At -above -- ]: incivility, harassment, disruption, incivility, harrassed, wikistalked, attacked, horrendous behaviors; and ]: disruptive behaviours.
:* At -above -- ]: rant, "enemy list"; and ]: disruptive
:* At -above -- ]: canvassing, obsession, obsession, agenda, canvassed, wikistalked, harassed, disruption, incivility, antagonaize, gloated, mocked, insulting, naming calling, harassment, inappropriate behaviors, enemy, disruptive, canvassing, disruption, naming calling, personal attack, disruptive behavior, harassment, "habitual verbal abuses"; and ]: disruptive behaviours
:* At -above -- ]: name callings, ad hominem attacks, canvassing, Crying wolf, long-term toxic warrior, harassing, naming calling, long-term and disruptive harassment, verbal abuse, verbal attacks, abuses, lurking, wikistalking, harassing, agenda, verbal abuses, harassment, attack, accuations, disruptive, harassed, abuses, attacks, attacking, vengeances, canvassed, disruptive, spooky behavior
:Who's kidding who? This cumulative list of repeated terms is drawn from just this one talk page, and it's harmful consequences are measurable.

:These words prove nothing; and the ArbCom decision neither endorses nor validates any single one of the above. Similar lists drawn from the evidence and workshop pages become telling measure of ArbCom's inattention. The fact that I perceive any need to post this explicit caveat becomes a stark indictment of ArbCom's failure in this case.
:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Parties instructed and urged ===
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "instructed and urged." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Parties are instructed and warned ===
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "instructed and warned." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Editors counseled to step away temporarily ===
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "counseled." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:I am the only participant who presents explicit evidence of actually taking steps to disengage from this ArbCom case, as shown at at above.

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than loaded words strung-together with wiki-catchwords. --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:59, 13 June 2009

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Casliber
  2. Cool Hand Luke
  3. Coren
  4. FayssalF
  5. FloNight
  6. Jayvdb
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Newyorkbrad
  9. Rlevse
  10. Roger Davies
  11. Stephen Bain
  12. Vassyana
  13. Wizardman

Inactive:

  1. Carcharoth
  2. Risker
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
The talk page comments have been blanked at the request of the participants in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)